See why the MSM should be questioned?

On Feb 25, 9:15*am, "mazorj" wrote:
"Bruce Remick" wrote in message

...



"PC" wrote in message
...

"oly" wrote in message
....
This is an example of why the MSM (main stream media)
should be
questioned in all time and all places.

I agree. *The conservative bias in the media is quite
evident.

The basic problem is that there are far more media than
news.

If by "more media" you include the need to feed the 24/7
news beast that the Internet has created, then you've put
your finger on one of the primary reasons for the decline in
the quality of journalism.

Mainly - fewer people pay for news.

"mazorj" wrote in message
...

"note.boy" wrote in message
...

"mazorj" wrote in message
...

"Bruce Remick" wrote in message
...

"PC" wrote in message
...

"oly" wrote in message
...
This is an example of why the MSM (main stream media) should be
questioned in all time and all places.

I agree. The conservative bias in the media is quite evident.

The basic problem is that there are far more media than news.

If by "more media" you include the need to feed the 24/7 news beast that
the Internet has created, then you've put your finger on one of the
primary reasons for the decline in the quality of journalism.

An enormous quantity but very little quality, I have given up watching
the news on TV in the UK as it has been very much dumbed down, I also
don't like the throbbing background music that seems essential when the
news are being read, as news is plural is are correct or not?

Many camera men have contracted Parkinson's Disease as few are now
capable of holding their camera steady, have streadycam gone out of
business? Billy

Television news actually started the decline in the 1970s. Consultants
perpetrated a tidal wave of make-overs at local stations. That's when you
started to see practices such as "if it bleeds, it leads," gimmicks like
"dramatic" music and inane graphics, silly featurette stories like the
iconic segment on water-skiing squirrels, the incorporation of PR video
into supposedly "straight reporting," and "happy chatter" between
co-anchors. Serious, solid journalism took third place behind ratings and
a never-ending demand for even higher profitability.

Unfortunately, the consultants proved to be right about what attracts
viewer eyeballs. A few years ago one station - IIRC, in Detroit - tried
to buck the trend by going back to a serious news/journalism format.
Their noble experiment tanked after a few months. As with governments, we
get the news shows that we deserve.

But it sounds like you are bursting one long-held, cherished delusion.
Has the Beeb's TV reporting sunk to that level too?


There is no TV news channel in the UK that's watchable unless your IQ
matches your shoe size. Billy

"note.boy" wrote in message
...

"mazorj" wrote in message
...

"note.boy" wrote in message
...

"mazorj" wrote in message
...

"Bruce Remick" wrote in message
...

"PC" wrote in message
...

"oly" wrote in message
...
This is an example of why the MSM (main stream media) should
be
questioned in all time and all places.

I agree. The conservative bias in the media is quite evident.

The basic problem is that there are far more media than news.

If by "more media" you include the need to feed the 24/7 news
beast that the Internet has created, then you've put your finger
on one of the primary reasons for the decline in the quality of
journalism.

An enormous quantity but very little quality, I have given up
watching the news on TV in the UK as it has been very much dumbed
down, I also don't like the throbbing background music that seems
essential when the news are being read, as news is plural is are
correct or not?

Many camera men have contracted Parkinson's Disease as few are now
capable of holding their camera steady, have streadycam gone out
of business? Billy

Television news actually started the decline in the 1970s.
Consultants perpetrated a tidal wave of make-overs at local
stations. That's when you started to see practices such as "if it
bleeds, it leads," gimmicks like "dramatic" music and inane
graphics, silly featurette stories like the iconic segment on
water-skiing squirrels, the incorporation of PR video into
supposedly "straight reporting," and "happy chatter" between
co-anchors. Serious, solid journalism took third place behind
ratings and a never-ending demand for even higher profitability.

Unfortunately, the consultants proved to be right about what
attracts viewer eyeballs. A few years ago one station - IIRC, in
Detroit - tried to buck the trend by going back to a serious
news/journalism format. Their noble experiment tanked after a few
months. As with governments, we get the news shows that we
deserve.

But it sounds like you are bursting one long-held, cherished
delusion. Has the Beeb's TV reporting sunk to that level too?

There is no TV news channel in the UK that's watchable unless your
IQ matches your shoe size. Billy

Damn. The rot has spread everywhere now.

"Mr. Jaggers" lugburzman[at]yahoo[dot]com wrote in message
...
mazorj wrote:
"Jud" wrote in message
...
This is very much a 'hot-button' topic for me. I have
been
witness to
a number of newsworthy events, and have found that what
actually
happened and what was reported are often 2 different
things.
Although
I enjoy reading opinions, they belong in the editorial
pages, not the
front page. Words taken out of context, or fabricated
words
find their
way into the news. Sensationalism of otherwise backpage
events finds
its way to the forefront. "If it bleeds, it leads".
• Tom Brokaw, NBC news reporting on the side impact of
Chevy
trucks
showing how the gas tank explodes. After numerous
attempts
to get one
to explode, NBC put detonators in the truck. No mention
of
fabricated
news, until it came out later.

That most definitely crossed the line. Most journalists'
reaction was "What the hell were they thinking?"

• Barbara Walters on the 20/20 news program interview
with
'Buckwheat'
from "The Little Rascals" shows. Turns out that the
interviewee only
claimed to be Buckwheat, who had died over 20 years
earlier.

I missed that one, but obviously they got sold a bill of
goods. However, since they apparently didn't do their
due
diligence in researching the subject, they don't get a
pass
on that one, either.

• Peter Arnett reporting from Kuwait City while under
Scud
attack from
Iraq stated that they were "Chemical Weapons". Pure
conjecture, and opinion.

Did he or anyone in an authoritative position admit that
Arnette had no basis for the characterization and that he
just pulled it out of, um, thin air? While no evidence
of
CBW scuds was found, it was well known that such weapons
existed in Iraq.
http://www.iraqwatch.org/government/...on/dodscud.htm
So the Israelis already feared the possibility of
chemical
attacks and probably assumed that that's what was
happening.
My guess is that Arnette or someone in his bureau would
have
heard from one or more local sources that the missiles
contained chemicals and he just went with it. It was not
an
unreasonable assumption. An error, but understandable
under
the circumstances. If the first casualty of war is the
truth, the second is the ability to gather and verify
facts
when you are reporting in real time and literally "under
the
gun".

• Numerous New York Times articles that were later proven
to
be pure fiction.

Along with a Washington Post story that won a Pullitzer
Prize and any number of similar examples. Yes, reporters
are like anyone else. Some are lazy or desperate or
arrogant enough to think that they can do this and not
get
caught. There is absolutely no excuse for these
examples,
although it should be noted that in these instances, the
reporter went through great lengths to conceal the
deception
from inquiring editors. It's not as though they leave
that
door wide open.

• Oprah Winfrey plugging a book that was pure fiction as
well.

Only because the author already had sold everybody a
complete bill of goods. There was no way for her to know
that in advance. I'm not a big Oprah fan, but she gets a
pass on this one.

These are just a few of the national/worldwide examples
of
journalistic incompetence.

Some of them are, and most of those are worse than simple
incompetence.

There are many others that I know about on a local
basis.
Whatever happened to journalistic integrity where ONLY
facts were
reported?

Those ideals always were honored in the breach as well as
in
the practice. We just are more aware of it now because
of
the Internet. And as I've previously noted, the
combination
of cuts in news staff plus the incessant demand for
higher
profits through higher ratings and circulation (which in
the
news room translates into more sensationalistic
reporting)
has seriously undercut the media's ability to uphold
standards and to police itself.

Who, what, when, where and why. And the 'why'
distinctly
identified as the reporter's opinion.

No, ideally the "why" should be an attributed quote from
an
authoritative source or derived from other attributed
information, not an expression of the reporter's opinion.
Sometimes the why never even gets mentioned.

Believe only 1/2 of what you hear, and the remaining
half
to be taken
with a grain of salt, because of reporters slant or
incompetence in
reporting the entire story.

See my reply to oly for a more extended response. I
basically agree although I wouldn't automatically
discount
half of the news I see or hear. More like ten percent.
;-)

As with any human endeavor, if you expect perfection or
anything close to it, you're going to be disappointed.
So
it would be unfair to tar the entire news industry either
for its endemic minor factual errors, or for the rare
willful, abhorrent acts of a small handful of rogue
reporters.

End of rant. We now return you to your regularly
scheduled
coin related discussions, already in progress.

As with you, this is a "hot-button topic" for me. Oh,
alright. So how about those new Lincoln cents? Anybody
like them?

Only if I can obtain a complete set in MS70 CAC. 8)

What, they're not on eBay yet?

"mazorj" wrote in message
...

"note.boy" wrote in message
...

"mazorj" wrote in message
...

"note.boy" wrote in message
...

"mazorj" wrote in message
...

"Bruce Remick" wrote in message
...

"PC" wrote in message
...

"oly" wrote in message
...
This is an example of why the MSM (main stream media) should be
questioned in all time and all places.

I agree. The conservative bias in the media is quite evident.

The basic problem is that there are far more media than news.

If by "more media" you include the need to feed the 24/7 news beast
that the Internet has created, then you've put your finger on one of
the primary reasons for the decline in the quality of journalism.

An enormous quantity but very little quality, I have given up watching
the news on TV in the UK as it has been very much dumbed down, I also
don't like the throbbing background music that seems essential when the
news are being read, as news is plural is are correct or not?

Many camera men have contracted Parkinson's Disease as few are now
capable of holding their camera steady, have streadycam gone out of
business? Billy

Television news actually started the decline in the 1970s. Consultants
perpetrated a tidal wave of make-overs at local stations. That's when
you started to see practices such as "if it bleeds, it leads," gimmicks
like "dramatic" music and inane graphics, silly featurette stories like
the iconic segment on water-skiing squirrels, the incorporation of PR
video into supposedly "straight reporting," and "happy chatter" between
co-anchors. Serious, solid journalism took third place behind ratings
and a never-ending demand for even higher profitability.

Unfortunately, the consultants proved to be right about what attracts
viewer eyeballs. A few years ago one station - IIRC, in Detroit - tried
to buck the trend by going back to a serious news/journalism format.
Their noble experiment tanked after a few months. As with governments,
we get the news shows that we deserve.

But it sounds like you are bursting one long-held, cherished delusion.
Has the Beeb's TV reporting sunk to that level too?

There is no TV news channel in the UK that's watchable unless your IQ
matches your shoe size. Billy

Damn. The rot has spread everywhere now.



Newsnight on BBC2 around 10.30 pm is not too bad but it tends to go too far
in the other direction, all heavy stuff. Billy

"PC" wrote in message
...
On Feb 25, 9:15 am, "mazorj" wrote:
"Bruce Remick" wrote in message

...

"PC" wrote in message
...

"oly" wrote in message
...
This is an example of why the MSM (main stream media)
should be questioned in all time and all places.

I agree. The conservative bias in the media is quite evident.

The basic problem is that there are far more media than news.

If by "more media" you include the need to feed the 24/7
news beast that the Internet has created, then you've put
your finger on one of the primary reasons for the decline in
the quality of journalism.

Mainly - fewer people pay for news.

That, too, but problems on the revenue side go even deeper. Craig's
List has cratered most newspapers' classified ads sections. Cable TV
is diverting more local merchants' ad budgets away from big print
display ads. With rare exceptions, ad revenues from their website
versions don't even cover the cost of the website. Newspapers are
trapped because they have to maintain a free website version of their
product or risk being written off as a non-player.